No one, and I seriously mean no one, writes articles as profound and insightful about our times as Louise Perry. I am, yet again, blown away by an MMM article
These articles are amazing, Louise! Fresh ideas every week. Rory Stewart is a massive disappointment. I bought my dad a couple of his books years ago. He seemed like an intrepid soldier and statesmen from a bygone era. Boy was I wrong
One point about immigration in the US. It’s hard to find data on but I’ve seen it all around me and especially in my years working in agriculture where I interacted a bit with migrant workers. Many immigrants from Mexico and especially those relying on the cartels to get them here illegally believe in a syncretic form of Christianity that blends in the occult. This is typified in the cult of La Santa Muerte. And many of my own “Catholic” Mexican students call Saint Jude or The Virgin of Guadalupe a “god”. Also many immigrants from Latin America simply don’t practice their faith in a devout manner like Evangelical Protestants or Trad Catholics in the US. It’s all superstition and familial ties. People who call themselves Christian are coming over the border, but they aren’t actually practicing. So those Pew stats are good but misleading. Though your point is made stronger by what I’m saying 🙂
Wise as always. I don’t doubt there is a decent tension within Christianity between love for your kin and love for the stranger. In that sense, Vance and Stewart are both right. The problem is one of balance. Too much of the Stewart variety and Christianity loses the means of its survival. The Vance variety is much more necessary for survival, it also coincides with our own need and nature if we want to lead happy lives in a functional society. I’m not sure how this will end.
The "caring heat map" Perry posted at the top of this article has been tossed around recently from a study showing that conservatives care more about their family, friends, and immediate community whereas liberals claim to care more about all people on earth, all living things, etc. I've pondered the question "Is it more right to care about one or the other?" and concluded that while it's more "right" to care about all people in theory, it's more productive to care most about your local kin and community in practice.
Despite what people may say, compassion is a finite resource, because exercising compassion requires attention, which is a finite resource. With that finite resource, you are far more likely to spend it effectively tending to the needs of your local family and community, because you have local expert knowledge of their specific needs, as opposed to someone you've never met in another country. You have no idea what they need, and by meddling you are more likely to do harm than good. This is the humanitarian instance of the "Think global, act local" aphorism. Of course, this doesn't discount the people who travel to foreign countries and actually become real experts through immersion, but that doesn't describe the vast majority of liberals.
In short, it's better to care more about your local kin than outgroups to the extent that you don't actively harm the outgroups, not because it's objectively true, but because caring directs action, and local action is always more effective due to local knowledge and efficient transmission of resources.
Very thoughtful. I think as well that true love, or at least optimal love, has to be personal. God doesn’t just love mankind or ‘the poor’ he loves each one of us as individuals. That doesn’t mean we don’t care for them but our connection is with the person we meet. That is the relationship in which we show what we are made of.
Rory Stewart et al are straightforwardly people who think we all shouldn't exist, or at least that we should simply stop trying to exist.
He's a degrowther (whether literally or implicitly). We have to ignore people like that.
Anyone who tells you to not start a family, to not have kids, to not save for the future, to fix the problems of your society by inviting in people of an other society, at replacements rates, simply must be ignored.
A key distinction that needs to be made is there is a difference between an order of love and an order of conflict.
There is a common saying in the Middle East (apparently), "Me against my brother; my brother and me against my cousin; my cousin and me against an outsider."
This is NOT the same as "my family, first, my extended family second, my community third, etc."
Former assumes conflict and backstabbing. The other is an appropriately ordered hierarchy of responsibility that aligns with the inherent hierarchy of proximity.
I know my family and have access to them, and so not only am I responsible for them, I also am best suited to know their needs.
This is critically different from the expectation that my brother and me will try to f over my cousin, rather than simply, not be as responsible for his well-being.
From my 50 odd years steeped in the Christian world including in the US Bible Belt my observation is that there will only a few % of the population who 1) have an orthodox belief and 2) actually feel a deep personal conviction of a relationship with God. Many people who go to even evangelical churches see their churchgoing as part of a wider worldview which is (more often) quite conservative and ( less often) is concentrated on social justice. My view is that leftist/liberal Christianity of the Stewart kind will just eventually dissipate and only Christianity combined with Vances conservatism will last. Religion requires honour, identity and boundaries. Left liberalism offers none of those
This is spot on. The left despises being held to objective moral standards and condemns strict boundaries as being instruments of oppression. This is because the existence of a single hierarchy of good is innately exclusive and spits in the face of total equality. The two worldviews are fundamentally incompatible.
It's striking that Christian immigrants become less religious over time, but Muslims do not. Perhaps Christianity is just closer to Western secularism, so it's easier to drift? Or the fact Islam is a stronger point of difference makes it easier to hang onto.
Islam has a powerful self-reinforcing structure that is entirely deliberate. Closer to Amish, Haridi Jews or Mormons. Modern Christianity - even orthodox forms - is mostly about freedom, love and choice. Secularism erodes away communities without the compulsion.
For J. D. Vance Christianity to survive, it will need to stop being an imperial religion. Between first millenium christianity and the third, there is the interesting, agitated and scandalous second one. What God maybe intend is not to design fake and unjust imperial border policy for christianity to survive but rather a set of transformative actions for nations to be healed and for christianity to thrive.
Christianity does have a more organic, pantheistic nature with its central beliefs in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think our views about who God is, is shaped by our humanistic nature so we tend to make God into a more acceptable image of ourselves. Probably not such a bad thing.
However, the phenomena of aging populations in modern consumer societies is the biggest difference, I think, to previous iterations of history. There will be no big bang, no big sign and wonder but a slowdown, a humanistic whimper of our latest world order iteration as we scramble to put into effect our best care models.
Logically, it is more just to care about everyone equally, and that it what I did- until I had children. Then, the utter madness and complete self-centredness of that view became apparent to me. How arrogant I was, attempting God's work. I am satisfied now with the work He has given me; a daughter and two sons.
Not for the first time I resolve to reread this piece... to think about it... so interesting. I'm aware of my bias toward Rory Stewart, he is a very decent person and he is undoubtedly clever. There are some points made from the other side which I can understand and sympathise with ... however so often these points are made from a very disrespectful place and unnerve me.
Thanks for writing this article - includes a few books that I will need to read at a certain point. As a Christian I have often struggled with different points of view over the immigration debate and yet a few years ago I moved a bit more decisively to the minimalist version seeing more and more of the challenges being posed and the totally weak response to them.
Tim Dieppe has just released a book looking at the Islam angle which might be of interest to those on MMM - here is the video recording of his book launch speech:
London may be an outlier but it isn't insignificant for UK Christianity (it being pretty much the only place it's still quite healthy) and at least here, I don't think Catholic churches are ethnically segregated: they often seem (as do large Catholic events) to be the most age and race mixed places you can be except perhaps public transport.
In the UK, the really large immigration we see is relatively recent (last 20 years accelerating a lot post Brexit) and Christianity had basically collapsed before that as a real force: in fact it might be being taken a bit more seriously now than it was in the 90s. If we do develop a nativist movement, this means it is pretty much impossible for it to be Christian because native English religious culture is basically dead, or would be dead if left to itself. On this, I think the UK and US are very, very different places.
Fair point on 2). I haven’t been able to find good data on 1), and my own anecdotal evidence suggests that some congregations are very diverse (I spent about 2 years going to a church that was basically 50% black, 50% white). But it’s also definitely true that a lot of churches are exclusively attended by a particular ethnic minority, and are thus practically invisible to white British people. I think the self-segregation is worse than it superficially appears to be.
Louise from the things you say I get the feeling you're keen on Christianity making a comeback.
It could happen, but I think we'll need another reformation first.
And it needs to be full on. Flip over the table and start from scratch. No more pontificating in fancy dress. Drop the supernatural bullshit, nobody believes it.
Circumvent the dried-up dog turd the church has become, and go straight to Jesus.
If we can do that, then things might happen. Much of the West is spiritually starving right now, God knows we're a pitiful sight.
No one, and I seriously mean no one, writes articles as profound and insightful about our times as Louise Perry. I am, yet again, blown away by an MMM article
❤️
100%
These articles are amazing, Louise! Fresh ideas every week. Rory Stewart is a massive disappointment. I bought my dad a couple of his books years ago. He seemed like an intrepid soldier and statesmen from a bygone era. Boy was I wrong
One point about immigration in the US. It’s hard to find data on but I’ve seen it all around me and especially in my years working in agriculture where I interacted a bit with migrant workers. Many immigrants from Mexico and especially those relying on the cartels to get them here illegally believe in a syncretic form of Christianity that blends in the occult. This is typified in the cult of La Santa Muerte. And many of my own “Catholic” Mexican students call Saint Jude or The Virgin of Guadalupe a “god”. Also many immigrants from Latin America simply don’t practice their faith in a devout manner like Evangelical Protestants or Trad Catholics in the US. It’s all superstition and familial ties. People who call themselves Christian are coming over the border, but they aren’t actually practicing. So those Pew stats are good but misleading. Though your point is made stronger by what I’m saying 🙂
Wise as always. I don’t doubt there is a decent tension within Christianity between love for your kin and love for the stranger. In that sense, Vance and Stewart are both right. The problem is one of balance. Too much of the Stewart variety and Christianity loses the means of its survival. The Vance variety is much more necessary for survival, it also coincides with our own need and nature if we want to lead happy lives in a functional society. I’m not sure how this will end.
The "caring heat map" Perry posted at the top of this article has been tossed around recently from a study showing that conservatives care more about their family, friends, and immediate community whereas liberals claim to care more about all people on earth, all living things, etc. I've pondered the question "Is it more right to care about one or the other?" and concluded that while it's more "right" to care about all people in theory, it's more productive to care most about your local kin and community in practice.
Despite what people may say, compassion is a finite resource, because exercising compassion requires attention, which is a finite resource. With that finite resource, you are far more likely to spend it effectively tending to the needs of your local family and community, because you have local expert knowledge of their specific needs, as opposed to someone you've never met in another country. You have no idea what they need, and by meddling you are more likely to do harm than good. This is the humanitarian instance of the "Think global, act local" aphorism. Of course, this doesn't discount the people who travel to foreign countries and actually become real experts through immersion, but that doesn't describe the vast majority of liberals.
In short, it's better to care more about your local kin than outgroups to the extent that you don't actively harm the outgroups, not because it's objectively true, but because caring directs action, and local action is always more effective due to local knowledge and efficient transmission of resources.
Very thoughtful. I think as well that true love, or at least optimal love, has to be personal. God doesn’t just love mankind or ‘the poor’ he loves each one of us as individuals. That doesn’t mean we don’t care for them but our connection is with the person we meet. That is the relationship in which we show what we are made of.
Rory Stewart et al are straightforwardly people who think we all shouldn't exist, or at least that we should simply stop trying to exist.
He's a degrowther (whether literally or implicitly). We have to ignore people like that.
Anyone who tells you to not start a family, to not have kids, to not save for the future, to fix the problems of your society by inviting in people of an other society, at replacements rates, simply must be ignored.
A key distinction that needs to be made is there is a difference between an order of love and an order of conflict.
There is a common saying in the Middle East (apparently), "Me against my brother; my brother and me against my cousin; my cousin and me against an outsider."
This is NOT the same as "my family, first, my extended family second, my community third, etc."
Former assumes conflict and backstabbing. The other is an appropriately ordered hierarchy of responsibility that aligns with the inherent hierarchy of proximity.
I know my family and have access to them, and so not only am I responsible for them, I also am best suited to know their needs.
This is critically different from the expectation that my brother and me will try to f over my cousin, rather than simply, not be as responsible for his well-being.
And -as I have stated repeatedly to vocation directors in religious institutes- you cannot make a lifetime commitment to an ambiguity.
From my 50 odd years steeped in the Christian world including in the US Bible Belt my observation is that there will only a few % of the population who 1) have an orthodox belief and 2) actually feel a deep personal conviction of a relationship with God. Many people who go to even evangelical churches see their churchgoing as part of a wider worldview which is (more often) quite conservative and ( less often) is concentrated on social justice. My view is that leftist/liberal Christianity of the Stewart kind will just eventually dissipate and only Christianity combined with Vances conservatism will last. Religion requires honour, identity and boundaries. Left liberalism offers none of those
This is spot on. The left despises being held to objective moral standards and condemns strict boundaries as being instruments of oppression. This is because the existence of a single hierarchy of good is innately exclusive and spits in the face of total equality. The two worldviews are fundamentally incompatible.
It's striking that Christian immigrants become less religious over time, but Muslims do not. Perhaps Christianity is just closer to Western secularism, so it's easier to drift? Or the fact Islam is a stronger point of difference makes it easier to hang onto.
Islam has a powerful self-reinforcing structure that is entirely deliberate. Closer to Amish, Haridi Jews or Mormons. Modern Christianity - even orthodox forms - is mostly about freedom, love and choice. Secularism erodes away communities without the compulsion.
I had the same thought. Is it true that to the letter of the law, the Quran punishes defecting from Islam by death?
That is my understanding but not 100% sure if that is interpretation or settled
Yes I think both, though I'd invert your first explanation - Western secularism is closer to (and the descendent of) Christianity. Tom Holland etc.
For J. D. Vance Christianity to survive, it will need to stop being an imperial religion. Between first millenium christianity and the third, there is the interesting, agitated and scandalous second one. What God maybe intend is not to design fake and unjust imperial border policy for christianity to survive but rather a set of transformative actions for nations to be healed and for christianity to thrive.
Christianity does have a more organic, pantheistic nature with its central beliefs in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I think our views about who God is, is shaped by our humanistic nature so we tend to make God into a more acceptable image of ourselves. Probably not such a bad thing.
However, the phenomena of aging populations in modern consumer societies is the biggest difference, I think, to previous iterations of history. There will be no big bang, no big sign and wonder but a slowdown, a humanistic whimper of our latest world order iteration as we scramble to put into effect our best care models.
Logically, it is more just to care about everyone equally, and that it what I did- until I had children. Then, the utter madness and complete self-centredness of that view became apparent to me. How arrogant I was, attempting God's work. I am satisfied now with the work He has given me; a daughter and two sons.
Not for the first time I resolve to reread this piece... to think about it... so interesting. I'm aware of my bias toward Rory Stewart, he is a very decent person and he is undoubtedly clever. There are some points made from the other side which I can understand and sympathise with ... however so often these points are made from a very disrespectful place and unnerve me.
Thanks for writing this article - includes a few books that I will need to read at a certain point. As a Christian I have often struggled with different points of view over the immigration debate and yet a few years ago I moved a bit more decisively to the minimalist version seeing more and more of the challenges being posed and the totally weak response to them.
Tim Dieppe has just released a book looking at the Islam angle which might be of interest to those on MMM - here is the video recording of his book launch speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU6fNcrsXmg
Two points of doubt:
London may be an outlier but it isn't insignificant for UK Christianity (it being pretty much the only place it's still quite healthy) and at least here, I don't think Catholic churches are ethnically segregated: they often seem (as do large Catholic events) to be the most age and race mixed places you can be except perhaps public transport.
In the UK, the really large immigration we see is relatively recent (last 20 years accelerating a lot post Brexit) and Christianity had basically collapsed before that as a real force: in fact it might be being taken a bit more seriously now than it was in the 90s. If we do develop a nativist movement, this means it is pretty much impossible for it to be Christian because native English religious culture is basically dead, or would be dead if left to itself. On this, I think the UK and US are very, very different places.
Fair point on 2). I haven’t been able to find good data on 1), and my own anecdotal evidence suggests that some congregations are very diverse (I spent about 2 years going to a church that was basically 50% black, 50% white). But it’s also definitely true that a lot of churches are exclusively attended by a particular ethnic minority, and are thus practically invisible to white British people. I think the self-segregation is worse than it superficially appears to be.
Louise from the things you say I get the feeling you're keen on Christianity making a comeback.
It could happen, but I think we'll need another reformation first.
And it needs to be full on. Flip over the table and start from scratch. No more pontificating in fancy dress. Drop the supernatural bullshit, nobody believes it.
Circumvent the dried-up dog turd the church has become, and go straight to Jesus.
If we can do that, then things might happen. Much of the West is spiritually starving right now, God knows we're a pitiful sight.
Here’s what the pope thinks: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/pope-francis-calls-trumps-plans-of-mass-deportation-of-immigrants-a-disgrace
He should probably focus on his own immigration laws
https://zenit.org/2024/08/29/vatican-citys-immigration-law-one-of-the-strictest-in-europe/